General Election 2015

A bill that would link elementary school science teacher pay to
what Washington legislators earn got a Tweet from the News
Tribune’s Jordan Schrader and a short mention in Crosscut,
but nothing more. Why? One reason is because there is no way the
bill will pass, and the bill’s author acknowledges as much.

State Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, introduced House Bill 2655, “Setting the
salaries for members of the legislature,” on Jan. 23. The bill
would require the Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected
Officials to set legislator pay at the same level as the “average
elementary school science teacher.”

Right away, there is one problem with the language of the bill.
Technically there is no such thing as an “elementary school science
teacher.” Patty Glaser, Bremerton School District spokeswoman, said
elementary school teachers certify as generalists. There is another
issue that Central Kitsap School District spokesman David Beil
pointed out, that because of declining enrollment the district
hasn’t been hiring any teachers in any discipline.

All that aside, Seaquist introduced the bill to make a point. He
said there has been an impetus to “start kids sooner in science.”
So he is looking at, for example, a Central Washington University
graduate with a bachelor’s degree in education, but then a master’s
degree in something like biology, as a good fit in an elementary
school. “We want to go in the direction of highly qualified
technical teachers, bringing real science to schools,” he said. “We
all know we want to go there.”

One problem, he said, is the pay the state and local districts
offer teachers.

The average pay for a fresh-out-of college teacher with just a
bachelor’s degree is $34,188, according to the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. Add that master’s degree and
the average starting pay jumps to $41,716. That’s not far from what
legislators receive, $42,106 for what is technically a part-time
job. But Seaquist points out that a legislator who lives more than
35 miles away from the capitol is also entitled to a $90 day per
diem to handle living-away-from-home expenses.

Seaquist makes the additional point that even the near $42,000
starting teachers with master’s degree make does not compare with
what they would make in the private sector. I used an automated
salary calculator on payscale.com to come up with an estimate that
a brand new research scientist would be paid $55,000 annually right
out of college. That same program estimated the pay would be around
$80,000 after five years.

When I first talked to Seaquist he was clear his bill wouldn’t
pass, but that it would get a hearing. And that’s what he wants
most, for legislators to be compelled to talk about teachers’
salaries.

“What I’m trying to do is add to the weight of the argument that
we have to be fully funding our schools, as the court says,”
Seaquist said. “I’m really concerned that the Legislature is not
standing up to fully respond to the court’s order.”

That order comes from the Washington Supreme Court’s McCleary
decision, which declared that the state was not fully funding
education as it was constitutionally required to do. The court gave
the Legislature until 2018 to reach full funding and in mid-January
determined that the Legislature’s first attempt to get there in
2013 was too small a step.

Seaquist would not limit the pay discussion to science teachers,
but did so in this bill to illustrate how people with skills that
are in high demand are underpaid in Washington schools. “I’m using
the example of these high-demand, much-in-need teachers to point
out that all of our teachers are underpaid,” he said.

UPDATE: Seaquist wrote to say he has asked the committee
chairman to not schedule a hearing on the bill. He said he was
mindful of the “rapidly growing workload” of the committee and
asked it to be pulled.

Nonetheless, there are still two points he would make, and I’ll
quote, “… a) our teachers are underpaid and b) we are having a hard
time recruiting elementary school teachers with subject matter
expertise, especially in the science and math areas. Although the
school district gave you the technical answer “we don’t have
elementary science teachers” the fact is that we are rapidly moving
to STEM education in our elementary schools and these hands-on,
research Master’s degree teachers are very valuable. I visited last
summer at CWU’s ed school where they are developing new approaches
to developing these teachers.”

So while the current reality is that elementary school teachers
are generalists, Seaquist believes there will be a call for more
elementary school teachers with a science background of some kind.
This bill was designed to get legislators discussing that, even if
he never expected it to pass.

And to answer one question, this is not the first time I’ve seen
a legislator propose a bill knowing full well it would not pass.
Talking about things is some of what legislators are paid to do. A
bill can be akin to an idea in a brainstorming session, something
that doesn’t get accepted on its face, but can be the spark for the
ultimate solution.

Teachers are underpaid is a fact . Hopefully that 34,ooo staring wage goes up quite quickly after the first year ? Not sure this is a good idea however , teachers can be quite competent in science , math , social studies and other subjects on an elementary level . . The educational problems are more complicated then this . The just throwing money as in a teacher for science only is frustrating . For instance Head Start helps equal out the ability of kids entering public schools , but as the years go by those kids who were helped by head Start begin to fall behind again . Its not the ability of the teacher in my opinion to be able to teach the subjects . The method of teaching , expectations being higher perhaps ,and allowing school charters wider expansion in specific areas, curriculum , handling of students who fall behind and those who are being slowed down , learning styles is a start .

Why introduce a flawed bill that you know won’t pass? Seems only to be taking some time away from critical discussions regarding fulfilling the requirements of McCleary and honoring the State’s Constitution.